"Thirty-four percent of the young Americans knew that the island used on last season's "Survivor" show was located in the South Pacific, but only 30 percent could locate the state of New Jersey on a map. The "Survivor" show's location was the Marquesas Islands in the eastern South Pacific. "

This hurts. Little punkass snot nosed brats don't know where we are?!

When public schools are so busy with teaching political correctness and revisionist history and their "rainbow" agenda, how can they find the time to teach geography? And if the americans of fighting age can't find Iraq on the map, that's OK. Just as long as the bomber pilots and troop transport pilots can find it we will be fine.

Well, they are too busy teaching kids how to, you know, use condoms!!! And of course they can't discipline kids anymore, because it is either racist or something, and you can't FAIL kids either for the same reasons...So it is perfectly understandable!Damned education system needs fixed... but we can't... because then liberals will accuse Republicans of wanting to hurt children. Look what happens when anyone thinks of touching Social Security...

I usually don't agree with what you say, and I understand where you're coming from with this, but it just kinda bugs me how you stuck "public schools" in there, when no such information about the educational background of these people surveyed is made available anywhere in the text of the article. All is said is that they are 18-24 years old.

From my own personal experience, public schools are indeed created from large piles of Suck, but it seems like you really need to pick your spots to make an argument and not just blindly make an assumption about people, when no mentioned of anything other than age is made.

EDIT: I'm not sure when things may have started changing, but I'm in this age group (22) and we were never taught how to use condoms, even during sex-education specific class times (as opposed to a general health class).

Honestly though, wouldn't you rather give up a half hour of a kid's education to inform some dumbass of how to use a condom properly instead of having the world be cursed with that dumbass' dumbass kid? This saves YOU, the taxpayer, money! You won't have to complain years from now about your taxes supporting yet another kid who made nothing of himself because his dad was only 11 years older than him.

I dunno. I think the main reason most public school vomit out class after class of functional illiterates these days is because they're being tested up the wazoo. Here in NC First grades have to take standardized tests, and they want to start testing kindergartners as well (and really, what do you learn in kindergarten beasides "try to colour in the lines?") to determine if they advance a grade or not.

How much damn time is taken up prepping for these ultimately useless tests that could be teaching a kid stuff and more importaly, being taught how to use it so it sticks around longer than the test session?

So long as all you teach them is to fill in the circle and make your mark dark on the Scantron sheet they're gonna have the education level or trained mice and the attention span of a gerbil on crank.

I would say that I think the more important priority of a school is to teach a damned kid where New Jersey is on a map, and NOT how to wear a condom. I mean really... how much money is spent on those programs where public schools teach things to kids that their PARENTS should be teaching them?The root of the problem is in the administration. Teachers do not have the power they need in the classroom anymore. You are really, literally, not allowed to discipline a kid in class anymore, because the administrations is afraid of one lawsuit or another. Then, of course, it goes back to the parents... I mean, if MY kid doesn't know how to find a state on a map, he will know, god damn it. What is wrong with these kid's parents?So what is the problem here? I do not know for sure, but it seems like everything is falling apart. And what I think it comes down to is- personal responsibility. These parents are not taking responsibility for their kids, and they expect the schools to teach their kids everything from math to sex, and want them to do it as hands-off as possible. They don't care enough to teach their own children, don't care enough to pay attention to their child's life, and don't care enough to discipline properly. But if the kid is disrputive, and the school calls them on it... the school is OUT OF LINE because there is "no way MY kid would do that.."So how does something like this get fixed? And I am not sure throwing money at it is the answer...

You made some really good points about parental responsibility, and yes, I do think that parents should take the initiative in educating their kids more. From trying to understand the condom specific thing, it seems like the issue at hand should be more important than the embarrassing nature of the subject to a parent, but I imagine that's why it's not done more. My mother played a big part in my education when I was in elementary school (she went over state and state capital flashcards with me until I knew every one by heart, for instance) but I never got the condom talk.

Besides, parents are BUSY!

I'm not sure what exactly you meant by teachers not being allowed to "discipline" a kid... it'd help if you elaborate. Not jumping down your throat, just want to be clear about your usage of the word.

I am going to have to find some specific links for you... but there is a real problem with that in California schools right now (teachers not being allowed to discipline students...) let me hunt I will add it when I find it...

Edit- Click Here This is from a Pasadena City site, so it it mainly written from the standpoint of "everything is fine!" but it does have some useful facts. Basically, you can get from this that a large part of the problem in our schools is cultural... and has a lot to do with the parents' attitude...Edit again - Audio Link this is interesting....

Another Edit- the links work find for me but not for others... here is the web pages-Pasadena- http://www.pasadenajournal.com/thisweek/id18.htmlRadio Show- http://www.johnandkenshow.com/audio/files/drevelyndandy.wmx

Well, do you mean discipline like yell, call in parents, give them detention, and suspend them, or physical discipline? I think that along with the issue mentioned earlier, that sort of thing (I don't approve of it myself- psychological abuse is much scarier and has a more long-lasting impact) should also be left to the parents.

Originally posted by UbermonkeysHonestly though, wouldn't you rather give up a half hour of a kid's education to inform some dumbass of how to use a condom properly instead of having the world be cursed with that dumbass' dumbass kid? This saves YOU, the taxpayer, money! You won't have to complain years from now about your taxes supporting yet another kid who made nothing of himself because his dad was only 11 years older than him.

2 things on this

1. If we didn't provide so much freaking welfare in the first place I wouldn't have to pay for it.

2. Dumbass' aren't going to use the condom anyway. They are the morons who, despite sex-ed, get their gilfriends knocked up now.

And besides, do we even need sex-ed in schools. It's more important for schools to teach kids how to find Georgia than the G-spot...

Of course, the saddest part about this entire situation is that this class of "functional illiterates" (don't mind the wording, btw) is that this series will create more functional illiterates to run through the school system. It's sad, really.

For all practical purposes, though, we can't really affect the private educational system (through high school), we can still affect the public system. I think Enojado hit the crux of the issue pretty well - the school systems do put too much emphasis on tests. However, the thing is this: How do you avoid putting emphasis on tests to determine who's learned the material and who hasn't?

I know that people learn different ways - hence, one of the big problems with standardized tests - but I still can't think of an easily feasible method to handle it. Maybe if you determine who learns what way early on, and attempt to teach them that way for their early years... However, then feasibilty is a problem.

Do we need sex-ed in public schools? Probably, but the question is one of timing. Obviously, it's not going to do any good early on... Personally speaking, I really only had one sex-ed class, and that consisted of about 2 class periods. It was largely useless. So long as it works, it's needed. If there's really no effect in the general area, then just scrap it and start handing condoms out. (I'm not even sure if I'm joking about that.)

Lastly, I must say that I'm a firm believer in the fact that education begins in the home. If there's not a suitable environment for education at home, then what's the point of sending a kid off to school for 7 or 8 hours a day to learn stuff he's not going to be pressured (I use that word loosely) to remember once he gets home? It's pointless. And the problem with this? If some kid's parents didn't stress education, then when he/she has children, why should they stress it? Ignorance begets ignorance, and we're back where we started.

Standardized tests would work if the emphasis in public schools were actually on learning. However, grades are handed out based on "hard work" rather than understanding of a subject. For example, when I was in high school, I got very few A's because, while I aced all my tests, I did no homework. Other students would get A's despite low test grades because they took the time at home to color in with crayons a diagram of the human body. If students aren't forced to learn things in order to pass, they can't be held accountable when they lack the comprehension skills you need to pass some standardized tests.

In my view, these three quotes from ya'll really get at the heart of the issue with public *education*:

"Standardized tests would work if the emphasis in public schools were actually on learning. However, grades are handed out based on "hard work" rather than understanding of a subject."

"If students aren't forced to learn things in order to pass, they can't be held accountable when they lack the comprehension skills you need to pass some standardized tests."

"Of course, the saddest part about this entire situation is that this class of "functional illiterates" (don't mind the wording, btw) is that this series will create more functional illiterates to run through the school system."

My opinion is that the current state of credentialing systems and teachers unions (and you can blame the colleges too) is just churning out a bunch of idiotic "teachers" who are not there because they are by nature intelligent people and want to see students learn material. They are there because they had nothing better to do after college so they decided, "Dude, I'll be a teacher, and I'll get tenure and lots of money!" Teachers would be able to do more if they were all of an academic mind. Unfortunately they are not, and too many are encouraged to just jump through the silly and worthless credentialing hoops so they can collect their good paycheck and never have to worry about job security. Yes there are the exceptions, but the rule is what is helping to kill public education.

Yes, parental responsibility is a major societal factor too, and administrators pocketing big wads of money is another. But many people seem to assume that the teachers are saints that are free from blame, and they are not.

The credentials process is a joke. With my political science degree, I cannot teach high school civics. If I had an education degree, I can teach civics even if I have never taken a civics/political science course in my life.

The education machine generally churns out dull, lifeless automatons they know nothing about teaching actual students and know little about any relevant basic subject matter. But they do not lots about all sorts of "education theory" that doesn't seem to have worked particularly well in the last twenty years.

I'm not hear to damn all teachers because some of them are a) bright, b) competent and c) enthusiastic but the majority are complete wastes of time. Those teaching jobs should go to somebody who actually has relevant coursework and knowledge in a particular academic subject, not just wade their way into education because it has become akin to a sociology degree.

I and others have proposed that we should dump credentialing systems altogether, and just allow schools to hire whoever they believed is qualified to teach a certain subject. Yes, it is true that you don't teach subjects, you teach people, but for the LOVE OF THE GOD I WORSHIP, if you actually HAD people in the classroom who actually were lovers of their field and of learning in general, then it wouldn't MATTER all that much that they may not have all the particular skills they need right away to teach a classroom. They will learn that in short time, especially if they are motivated to teach. Just allow them to be an apprentice to someone who has been teaching awhile and pass it down as a craft, not as a rubber stamp someone gets from a bureaucrat.

Just turn high schools more in junior colleges. Hell, the JCs are turning more into high schools, so why not return the favor? You can say "Students aren't going to like it and won't do the work," but if you forced them to do it by raising the bar and holding them accountable if they don't do the damn work, then conditions would improve.

Originally posted by GrimisThe credentials process is a joke. With my political science degree, I cannot teach high school civics. If I had an education degree, I can teach civics even if I have never taken a civics/political science course in my life.

The education machine generally churns out dull, lifeless automatons they know nothing about teaching actual students and know little about any relevant basic subject matter. But they do not lots about all sorts of "education theory" that doesn't seem to have worked particularly well in the last twenty years.

I'm not hear to damn all teachers because some of them are a) bright, b) competent and c) enthusiastic but the majority are complete wastes of time. Those teaching jobs should go to somebody who actually has relevant coursework and knowledge in a particular academic subject, not just wade their way into education because it has become akin to a sociology degree.

As a former teacher/lecturer, I really wish I could defend my former colleagues, but I can't. One of the most frightening experiences I ever had as a teacher was during my first semester as a graduate student/AI at Indiana University and I flunked 96% of my students on their first assignment because they were incapable of writing simple declarative sentences in what was, in 48 of my 50 students that semester, supposed to be their native language. I went to my pedagogy professor and asked her what I should do and she told me "Sometimes, you just have to flunk them." After I don't know how many discussions, arguments, crying fits, swearing sessions, and getting to have a long conversation with the course director, I ended up giving up and rewriting my entire syllabus in order to reteach that unit and give those students a chance to learn how to write. (By the way, I was teaching public speaking, not english. I'm not even going to discuss what they were being taught in English 101.) Even after that, I still ended up failing about 2/3 of them on that assignment. Ultimately, I ended up having to develop a 2 grade grading system just so that I could convey to the students who didn't want to read my voluminous comments that their ideas were good but their "form" was horrific.

As far as credentialing goes, I've got a horror story about that one as well. I looked into becoming a high school speech teacher after discovering that the life of the adjunct faculty member really sucks and doesn't offer any benefits. I knew I would have to take courses in the school of education, but I assumed that my MA in Communications and Culture as well as experience teaching Public Speaking, Interpersonal, and Organization Communication would probably count for something as well. I was wrong. In fact, I found out that I would be required to take a Public Speaking course, using the same text I was then teaching out of at two different colleges, because it had been too long since my undergraduate course. In addition, I would need to take one or more english classes since I tested out of all of those as an undergrad and fulfilled my writing and literature requirements in other departments. The end result was that it would take me, with both AB and MA plus experience teaching at the college level, 2-21/2 years of coursework in order to get a teaching license in the state of Indiana. For some strange reason, I decided not to go after my teaching license.

There is lots more I could say on this subject, but I'll leave it alone since it always upsets me when I start thinking about the way the education system in this country has been ruined by teacher's unions and tenure.

Since my mother went to school to get her teaching degree, I do know how much of a joke the whole process is. Very little emphasis is placed on actual general knowledge of the subjects you may actually be teaching. It was all this B.S. stuff, I guess supposedly skills that would actually help teach you how to teach. I'm not sure you can actually teach someone how to teach. You're either good at it or not. The best teachers I've had didn't follow any conventional format. They just simply were very knowledgable about the subject, very obviously liked the subject, and thus were able to present the material in an interesting way.

It's been my experience, and I'm sure most of you have had the same experience, that the only times the teachers use the things taught in school is when they are being evaluated by a principal. It was almost funny, seeing a teacher go through a dog and pony show that they NEVER actually do at any other time. I almost wanted to say "Miss Doe, why are you writing 'The Student Will' objectives on the blackboard, you've never done that before." So how useful can this stuff be when the typical teacher discards it as soon as they get an actual job. I think that a person with a political science degree with job experience would be VERY qualified to teach civics, without further training.

I think one problem, and Bucs Fan was hitting on this, is that school is too darn easy. He said he could ace tests without doing the homework. There's something wrong with that. Too much homework, though, is pretty much coloring in things, or in other words, 'busy' work. And there's too much push for EVERYONE to pass. I believe that's the work of the 'Leave no child behind" theory. Adminstrators push for a 100% pass rate. The simplest way to get that (and maybe the only way, realistically) is to just pass everybody, whether they know the material or not. I think a real educational system would have grades resembling a bell curve over the long haul (though they shouldn't be forced to fit the curve, different years will produce different results). And yes, some kids will fail. I believe every kid should have the OPPORTUNITY to learn. I don't believe every kid WILL learn. You can't force those who don't want to learn, to learn. Just givng away a passing grade does not mean the kid is more educated.

Finally, in defense of the teachers, another big problem is adminstrations with weak spines. They allow the parents to dictate too much policy, and don't allow teacher's to do their job. For example, there was a case in Kansas where a teacher had to give zeros to a good portion of a class because they were caught plagiarizing red-handed. The students simply did not do the work. A zero is fair and just. But the parents complained to the school board, and the school board overuled the teacher, undermining her authority. Of course, at that point the students no longer respected the teacher (afterall, she didn't do something they liked, all they had to do was get Mommy and Daddy to complain to the bosses). She resigned. There are too many parents (not a majority mind you, at least I don't think) who are more interested in what letter shows up on the report card and transcript than they are interested in seeing their child get an education. They will seek that grade for their child by any means necessary. And if that means complaining to the school board or school superintendent, then that's what they will do. But it's the school board's job to do what's best to uphold the integrity of the school system. However, often, instead of that, they do what will get the parents off their back, in an effort to not upset certain people in the community. In turn, that sends a message that they won't back the teacher. And pretty soon, many teachers will figure out that they need to do the same, and not stir up any trouble.

I think there is a big difference between elementary public education, and junior high/high school. This thread essentially seems to be about Junior High/ High School.

I just wanted to point that out, becuase in elementary education it's a million times more important to know teaching theories and class control and stuff like that then subject matter. You can learn your 2th grade curriculum in about a day. I mean, if you've graduated college you probably know how to write cursive and do your times tables. An PhD doesn't teach you how to deal with 30 8-year-olds for 6 hours a day.

Most of the bitching about teachers and public education is generally about 6th - 12th grade. Now, I happen to think this is just because 6th-12th graders are the most miserable people on the planet and should be deported until they're 20 or so, but another answer could be that it's becuase elementary education and teachers are pretty good.

My grandmother was a 3rd grade public school teacher, teacher though, so maybe I'm biased.